DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 3 December 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous Drawing and Specification objections. However, a new Drawing objection has been added in the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim objection and the previous 35 USC 112 rejections. The previous Claim objection and 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. However, new 35 USC 112 rejections have been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 13 has voided interpretation invoked under 35 USC 112(f). As a result, the Claim Interpretation section has been removed from the current Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 and 103 have been fully considered. The Applicant’s arguments regarding the Feldmann reference and claim 17 are not persuasive. However, the Applicant’s arguments regarding the Mazumder reference and claim 1 are persuasive. After conducting an updated search for claim 1, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portion of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 102 and 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 3 December 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 3, 14, and 17 have been amended. Claim 13 has been cancelled. Claims 29-30 are new.
Claims 1, 3, 5-12, and 14-30 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following reasons:
Letters should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces in fig. 4 (MPEP 608.02.V.m).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 29 recites “wherein the one or more optics are configured to shape the laser beam into at least one geometry of a plurality of beam geometries during a second scanning of the build piece, and to adapt a first geometry of the laser beam at a first time during the second scanning of the build piece and to adapt a second geometry of the laser beam at a second time during the second scanning of the build piece, each of the first and second geometries is based on an energy profile of the build piece to fuse the powder material.” However, this limitation is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. Although the “first scanning” in claim 1 has support in fig. 4 in the Drawings of the Instant Application, there is no mention of an additional or “second scanning” of the scan shown in fig. 4. As a result, by using this claim limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claim 30 recites “a continuous scanning direction.” However, a “continuous scanning direction” is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. As a result, by using this claim limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
These new rejections have been added based on new claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 30 recites a “continuous scanning direction.” However, it is unclear what is meant in claiming a scanning direction that is “continuous” and what the difference is between a “continuous” scanning direction and a non-continuous scanning direction. Additionally, there is no mention of a “continuous scanning direction” in the Specification. However, the Specification does mention continuous scanning. For the purpose of the examination, this limitation will be interpreted as: “wherein the first scanning of the build piece includes scanning continuously along a
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Feldmann et al. (US-20180207722-A1, effective filing date of 18 July 2015).
Regarding claim 17, Feldmann teaches a method of laser-based powder-bed fusion of a build piece (“laser energy onto the powder bed during additive manufacturing by selective laser melting (SLM),” para 0034; when the powder melts, it fuses and creates a build piece), comprising:
adapting a geometry (in order to understand the phrase “adapting a geometry of a laser beam,” the examiner is relying on para 0019 of the Instant Application which describes how “the laser beam geometry,” shown in figs. 2A-B, “may be adapted based on the geometry of a desired part,” which is reflected in fig. 4; fig. 4 of the Instant Application shows adapting a laser beam line projection similar to what Feldmann shows in fig. 5C for a line laser projection in fig. 2B where the “width of the projection” is varied, para 0051) of a laser beam (beam from laser 310, fig. 5C; line projection 22, fig. 2B, which is the “line laser” that is adapted to from the checkerboard pattern shown in fig. 5C, para 0051) based on an energy profile of the build piece (the examiner is relying on fig. 5 of the Instant Application to understand what an “energy profile” is; similarly, the “checkerboard pattern” of fig. 5C taught by Feldmann is construed as the claimed energy profile, which show different regions 311 and 312, for different amounts of fusion that take place in the checkerboard pattern) to form a first adapted laser beam (para 0051 describes how the laser energy is adapted for first-stage fusion that takes place in regions 311; the slanted regions at the left in regions 311 are construed as the “first adapted laser beam;” annotated in fig. 5C below) comprising a line (“line projection,” para 0051; line projection 22, fig. 2B) or a two-dimensional shape (line projection 22 has a length and width, fig. 2B; para 0060) upon contacting a surface (build surface 313, fig. 5C) of a layer of powder material (“layer,” para 0051) at a first time (the line projections have ”time-varying positions,” para 0051; the line projections are scanned in a time-varying manner; the construed “first adapted laser beam” is construed as happening at a “first time” in the line projections that are on the left in regions 311, fig. 5C) during a first scanning (“scanning,” para 0051; the “first stage” in para 0051 is construed as the “first scanning;” regions 311 are scanned during the first stage, fig. 5C) of the build piece (build surface 311, fig. 5C); and
applying the first adapted laser beam (projections on the left of the regions 311, fig. 5C) to at least a first portion (left portion of regions 311, fig. 5C; annotated in fig. 5C below) of the layer of the powder material to fuse at least a first portion (left portion of regions 311, fig. 5C) of the build piece (referring to fig. 5C, “the laser energy is modulated spatially and temporally to induce at fusion only in regions marked as 311,” para 0051)
adapting (adapted by widening the “width of the projection,” para 0051) the geometry of the first adapted laser beam (projections on the left of the regions 311, fig. 5C) based on the energy profile (“checkerboard pattern,” para 0051; fig. 5C) of the build piece to form a second adapted laser beam (projections in the middle of the regions 311, fig. 5C; annotated in fig. 5C below) comprising a different size (“the width of the projection … are varied,” para 0051; the projections in the middle of the regions 311 are wider or long than the projections on the left of the regions 311, fig. 5C) or shape (changing the shape of the line projections is not explicitly disclosed) than the first adapted laser beam at a second time (the line projections have ”time-varying positions,” para 0051; the line projections are scanned in a time-varying manner; the construed “second adapted laser beam” is construed as happening at a “second time” in the middle of regions 311, which take place at a different time than the “first time” in the line projections that are on the left in regions 311, fig. 5C) during the first scanning of the build piece (“first stage,” para 0051); and
applying the second adapted laser beam to at least a second portion (powder in the middle of regions 311, fig. 5C;) of the layer of powder material to fuse (“fusion only in regions marked as 311,” para 0051) at least a second portion (middle of regions 311, fig. 5C; annotated in fig. 5C below) of the build piece (build surface 311, fig. 5C).
Feldman, figs. 2B and 5C
PNG
media_image1.png
442
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
793
1097
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Feldmann teaches further comprising varying the geometry of the laser beam (the “width of the projection” is varied in regions 311, fig. 5C; para 0051) over time during application of the laser beam (“time-varying position of the line projection,” para 0051).
Regarding claim 19, Feldmann teaches further comprising varying the geometry of the laser beam (line projection 22, fig. 2B; “line laser,” para 0051; the “width” of the line projection is varied in regions 311, fig. 5C; para 0051) based on the energy profile of the build piece (fig. 5C; “the distribution of intensity along the projection are varied to achieve such an exemplary checkerboard pattern,” para 0051).
Regarding claim 20, Feldmann teaches wherein the geometry of the first or second adapted laser beams (line projection 22, fig. 2B, for regions 311, fig. 5C; “line laser,” para 0051) comprises the two-dimensional shape (line projection 22 has a length and width, fig. 2B; para 0060).
Regarding claim 21, Feldmann teaches wherein the geometry of the first or second adapted laser beams (line projection 22, fig. 2B, for regions 311, fig. 5C; “line laser,” para 0051) comprises the line (“line projection,” para 0051), the method further comprising applying the first or second adapted laser beams in a direction (x direction, fig. 2B; scanning takes place along the x-axis in fig. 2B, para 0050; in regions 311 in fig. 5C, the claimed “direction” is construed as the direction from the top left to the bottom right) perpendicular to a length of the line (y direction, fig. 2B or slants from bottom left to top right for regions 311, fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 22, Feldmann teaches wherein a length of the line is variable (“the width of the projection … varied,” para 0051) based on an energy profile of the first or second adapted laser beam (pattern for regions 311, fig. 5C; in these regions, the widths of the line projections are varied).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldmann et al. (US-20180207722-A1, effective filing date of 18 July 2015) as applied to claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 23, Feldmann teaches wherein the geometry of the first or second adapted laser beams (left and middle line projections within regions 311, fig. 5C) includes at least a first portion (left portion of regions 311, fig. 5C) and a second portion (middle of regions 311, fig. 5C).
In the fig. 5C embodiment, Feldmann does not explicitly disclose an energy profile of the first portion is different than an energy profile of the second portion.
However, in the embodiment shown in fig. 7A, Feldmann teaches an energy profile of the first portion (projection 703, fig. 7A) is different than an energy profile of the second portion (projection 704, fig. 7A; projection 703 produces less energy than projection 704, para 0055).
Feldmann, fig. 7A
PNG
media_image3.png
1098
1014
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of the fig. 5C embodiment, in view of the teachings of the embodiment shown in fig. 7A, by correlating the modulated line projections 703 in fig. 7A with the left portion of regions 311 in fig. 5C, and by correlating the non-modulated line projections 704 in fig. 7A with the middle portion of regions 311 in fig. 5C, in order to modulate the energy spatially in regions 311 with modulated and non-modulated regions, so that the residual stress that accumulates in the small-area fused modulated regions in the corners can be absorbed by the small-area non-modulated regions, because otherwise a wide-area melt pool would form that would expand beyond the corners, causing fusion in areas outside regions 311, increasing the likelihood of undesired defects that can result on the build surface (Feldmann, paras 0036, 0051, and 0057).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of fig. 5C in view of 7A of Feldmann as set forth above regarding claim 23 teaches the invention of claim 24. Specifically, in fig. 7A, Feldmann teaches wherein the energy profile of the first portion (projection 703, fig. 7A) and the energy profile of the second portion (projection 704, fig. 7A; projection 703 produces less energy than projection 704, para 0055; each of these projections are slanted differently similar to the embodiment of fig. 5C) are configured based at least in part on a temperature profile (“a non-modulated line shaped source brings the powder close to its melting temperature, and melting takes place if additional energy is delivered, such as using the modulated line source,” para 0055; the temperature profile is construed as the temperature for projection 703 being less than the melting temperature and the temperature for projection 704 being greater than the melting temperature).
Regarding claim 25, Feldmann teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose in the fig. 5C embodiment, wherein the energy profile of the first portion and the energy profile of the second portion are configured to provide a constant energy flux between the first portion and the second portion.
However, in the embodiment shown in fig. 7E, Feldmann teaches wherein the energy profile of the first portion (modulated portion 712, fig. 7E) and the energy profile of the second portion (non-modulated projection 713, fig. 7E) are configured to provide a constant energy flux between the first portion and the second portion (no energy is provided between portions 712 and 713, fig. 7E; construed as a constant zero flux value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of the fig. 5C embodiment, in view of the teachings of the embodiment shown in fig. 7E, by correlating the modulated line projections 712 in fig. 7E with the left portion of regions 311 in fig. 5C, and by correlating the non-modulated line projections 713 in figs. 7E with the middle portion of regions 311 in fig. 5C, and by using a region where no fusion takes place between the modulated/first-stage regions and the non-modulated/second-stage regions, as shown in fig. 7E, in order to prevent overlapping of the linear projections, to ensure that fusion does not inadvertently spread from the modulated projections to the non-modulated projections, for the advantage of precisely controlling the microstructure to ensure that the residual stress that accumulates in the small-area fused modulated regions in the corners can be absorbed by the small-area non-modulated regions, because otherwise a wide-area melt pool would form that would expand beyond the corners, causing fusion in areas outside regions 311, increasing the likelihood of undesired defects that can result on the build surface (Feldmann, paras 0036, 0051, and 0056-0057).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of fig. 5C in view of 7A of Feldmann as set forth above regarding claim 23 teaches the invention of claim 26. Specifically, in fig. 7A, Feldmann teaches wherein the laser beam is configured to preheat the powder material (“a significant fraction of its melting point,” para 0055) at the first portion (projection 703, fig. 7A) and the laser beam is configured to fuse the powder material (“local melting,” para 0055; the powder is construed as fusing when it melts) at the second portion (projection 704, fig. 7A).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of fig. 5C in view of 7A of Feldmann as set forth above regarding claim 23 teaches the invention of claim 27. Specifically, in fig. 7A, Feldmann teaches wherein the laser beam is configured to fuse the powder material (“one or more modulated linear shaped projections that cause local melting,” para 0055) at the first portion (modulated projection 704, fig. 7A) and the laser beam is configured to reduce an energy flux to control cooling of the fused powder material (“heating the build surface to an elevated temperature so as to relieve residual stress or control its microstructure, after the layer is fused yet before application of the next layer of unfused material,” para 0057) at the second portion (non-modulated projection 703, fig. 7A).
Regarding claim 28, Feldmann teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose in the fig. 5C embodiment, further comprising determining a geometry of the build piece, and wherein the geometry of the laser beam is adapted based on the geometry of the build piece.
However, in the embodiment shown in fig. 4A, Feldmann teaches further comprising determining a geometry of the build piece (desired area 303 that is fused to create a build piece, fig. 4A), and wherein the geometry of the laser beam (line projection 22, fig. 2B) is adapted based on the geometry of the build piece (“The intensity profile of the line projection can be modulated in such a fashion that not only the outer shape of the fused area 303 is controlled by the process but also so that any desired pattern of fused and unfused areas e.g. 304 can be created within,” para 0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of the fig. 5C embodiment, to include, further comprising determining a geometry of the build piece, and wherein the geometry of the laser beam is adapted based on the geometry of the build piece, by using the checkerboard pattern, as taught in fig. 5C, to build a desired area 303, as taught in fig. 4A, by adjusting the intensity profile of the line projection to fuse only the desired area of the build, so that the shape of the built object can be tailored based on desired customer dimensions (Feldmann, para 0050; Feldmann teaches a similar shape or outer boundary of a build object in fig. 5C).
Claims 1, 3, 5-12, 14, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldmann et al. (US-20180207722-A1, effective filing date of 18 July 2015) in view of Diaz et al. (US-20170239724-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Feldmann teaches an apparatus (fig. 1) for laser-based powder-bed fusion of a build piece (“laser energy onto the powder bed during additive manufacturing by selective laser melting (SLM),” para 0034; when the powder melts, it fuses and creates a build piece), comprising:
a depositor (mechanism 8 and powder cartridge 6, fig. 1) configured to deposit a plurality of layers of a powder material (“spreads powder from a vertically actuated powder cartridge 6 in the working table region,” para 0046; “plurality of fused layers,” para 0047; construed such that the mechanism 8 and powder cartridge 6 can spread multiple unfused layers);
a laser beam source (laser 310, fig. 5C; laser source 1, fig. 1) configured to generate a laser beam (beam from laser 310, fig. 5C; line projection 22, fig. 2B, which is the “line laser” that is adapted to from the checkerboard pattern shown in fig. 5C, para 0051) to scan across (“scanning,” para 0051) an area of a surface (area of build surface 311, fig. 5C) of one of the layers (“layer,” para 0051) of the powder material to fuse a portion of one of the layers of the powder material (“form a plurality of individual melt pools when scanning with a line laser,” para 0051; melting the powder is construed as “fusing” the powder) during a first scanning of the build piece (the “first stage” in para 0051 is construed as the “first scanning;” regions 311 are scanned during the first stage, fig. 5C); and
one or more optics (not explicitly disclosed) configured to shape the laser beam (beam from laser source 310, fig. 5C) into at least one geometry of a plurality of beam geometries (“the width of the projection … varied,” para 0051; pattern for regions 311, fig. 5C; in these regions, the widths of the line projections are varied and these varying widths are construed as the claimed “plurality of beam geometries”) during the first scanning of the build piece (“first stage,” para 0051), and to adapt a first geometry of the laser beam (left portion of regions 311, fig. 5C; annotated in fig. 5C above) at a first time (the line projections have ”time-varying positions,” para 0051; the line projections are scanned in a time-varying manner; the construed “first adapted laser beam” is construed as happening at a “first time” in the line projections that are on the left in regions 311, fig. 5C) during the first scanning of the build piece (“first stage,” para 0051) and to adapt a second geometry of the laser beam (projections in the middle of the regions 311, fig. 5C; annotated in fig. 5C above) at a second time (the line projections have ”time-varying positions,” para 0051; the line projections are scanned in a time-varying manner; the construed “second adapted laser beam” is construed as happening at a “second time” in the middle of regions 311, which take place at a different time than the “first time” in the line projections that are on the left in regions 311, fig. 5C) during the first scanning of the build piece (“first stage,” para 0051), each of the first and second geometries is based on an energy profile of the build piece to fuse the powder material (the examiner is relying on fig. 5 of the Instant Application to understand what an “energy profile” is; similarly, the “checkerboard pattern” of fig. 5C taught by Feldmann is construed as an energy profile, which show different regions 311 and 312, for different amounts of fusion that take place in the checkerboard pattern).
Feldmann does not explicitly disclose one or more optics configured to shape the laser beam.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser-based additive manufacturing systems, Diaz teaches one or more optics (means 5 and scanner 3, fig. 1; the means 5 is a “varioSCAN focusing unit, obtainable from SCANLAB,” para 0125; “control (such as to vary or maintain) the size of the primary laser spot while it is being displaced along the first scanning pattern,” para 0125) configured to shape the laser beam (shape of effective laser spot 21, fig. 2; “in FIGS. 12D and 12E, the two-dimensional energy distribution is adapted so that the effective spot progressively grows narrower,” para 0149).
Diaz, figs. 12D and 12E
PNG
media_image4.png
424
644
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
448
652
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Feldmann, in view of the teachings of Diaz, by using a scanner and a varioSCAN focusing unit, as taught by Diaz, to vary the width of the line projections and scan the line projections, as taught by Feldmann, in order to use optical elements capable of producing an effective laser spot that can be dynamically adapted to match the respective dimension (such as the width) of the portion of the object along which the effective spot is swept, for the advantage of controlling the energy of the effective laser spot so that overheating can be avoided in more sensitive areas (Diaz, paras 0044, 0056, and 0064).
Regarding claim 3, Feldmann teaches wherein at least one geometry of a plurality of beam geometries (pattern for regions 311, fig. 5C; in these regions, the widths of the line projections are varied and these varying widths are construed as the claimed “plurality of beam geometries”) can be varied (the width of the projection … varied,” para 0051;).
Feldmann does not explicitly disclose a design profile for an object to be produced.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser-based additive manufacturing systems for metal powder, Diaz teaches a design profile for an object to be produced (“the method can be carried out under the control of a computer, with input data including those defining the structure of the object to be produced, for example, CAD data related to the structure of the object to be produced.,” para 0083; the CAD data is construed as the claimed “design profile”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Feldmann, in view of the teachings of Diaz, by using CAD data, as taught by Diaz, for the checkerboard pattern, as taught by Feldmann, in order to use a computer-aided design that a controller can use to direct the scanning, so that the build-up of the object can take place area by area, instead of point by point based on manual input (Diaz, para 0030).
Regarding claim 5, Feldmann teaches wherein at least one geometry of the plurality of beam geometries (linear projections in regions 311, fig. 5C) comprises a two-dimensional shape (“line laser,” para 0051; line projection 22 has a length and width, fig. 2B; para 0060).
Regarding claim 6, Feldman teaches wherein at least one geometry of the plurality of beam geometries (linear projections in regions 311, fig. 5C) comprises a line (“line laser,” para 0051; “The average width of such a line can be as wide as 1 micrometer,” para 0060; the line projection is construed as being a line when the width is 1 micron).
Regarding claim 7, Feldmann teaches wherein a length of the line is variable (“the width of the projection … varied,” para 0051) based on an energy profile of the laser beam (respective patterns for regions 311 and 312 are construed as “energy profiles;” in these regions, the widths of the line projections are varied).
Regarding claim 8, Feldmann teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose in the fig. 5C embodiment, wherein at least one geometry of the plurality of beam geometries includes at least a first portion and a second portion and an energy profile of the first portion is different from an energy profile of the second portion.
However, in the embodiment shown in fig. 7A, Feldmann teaches at least one geometry of the plurality of beam geometries includes at least a first portion (modulated line projection 704/non-modulated line projection 703, fig. 7A) and a second portion (if the first portion is 704, then the second portion is the non-modulated line projection 703/ if the first portion is 703, then the second portion is the modulated line projection 704, fig. 7A) and an energy profile of the first portion is different from an energy profile of the second portion (“the non-modulated linear shaped projection of laser energy to heat the powder to a significant fraction of its melting point, and one or more modulated linear shaped projections that cause local melting,” para 0055; construed such that the energy of the non-modulated linear shaped projection is less than the energy of the modulated linear shaped projection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of the fig. 5C embodiment, in view of the teachings of the embodiment shown in fig. 7A, by correlating the modulated line projections 704 in fig. 7A with the left portion of regions 311 in fig. 5C, and by correlating the non-modulated line projections 703 in fig. 7A with the middle portion of regions 311 in fig. 5C, in order to modulate the energy spatially in regions 311 with modulated and non-modulated regions, so that the residual stress that accumulates in the small-area fused modulated regions in the corners can be absorbed by the small-area non-modulated regions, because otherwise a wide-area melt pool would form that would expand beyond the corners, causing fusion in areas outside regions 311, increasing the likelihood of undesired defects that can result on the build surface (Feldmann, paras 0036, 0051, and 0057).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of fig. 5C in view of 7A of Feldmann as set forth above regarding claim 8 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, in fig. 7A,Feldmann teaches wherein the energy profile of the first portion and the energy profile of the second portion (projection 703 produces less energy than projection 704, fig. 7A and para 0055) are configured based at least in part on a temperature profile (“a non-modulated line shaped source brings the powder close to its melting temperature, and melting takes place if additional energy is delivered, such as using the modulated line source,” para 0055; the temperature profile is construed as the temperature for projection 703 being less than the melting temperature and the temperature for projection 704 being greater than the melting temperature).
Regarding claim 10, Feldmann teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose in the fig. 5C embodiment, wherein the laser beam source is configured to provide a constant energy flux between the first portion and the second portion.
However, in the embodiment shown in fig. 7E, Feldmann teaches wherein the laser beam source (laser source 1, fig. 1) is configured to provide a constant energy flux between the first portion (modulated portion 712, fig. 7E) and the second portion (non-modulated projection 713, fig. 7E; no energy is provided between portions 712 and 713, fig. 7E; construed as a constant zero flux value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of the fig. 5C embodiment, in view of the teachings of the embodiment shown in fig. 7E, by correlating the modulated line projections 712 in fig. 7E with the left portion of regions 311 in fig. 5C, and by correlating the non-modulated line projections 713 in figs. 7E with the middle portion of regions 311 in fig. 5C, and by using a region where no fusion takes place between the modulated/first-stage regions and the non-modulated/second-stage regions, as shown in fig. 7E, in order to prevent overlapping of the linear projections, to ensure that fusion does not inadvertently spread from the modulated projections to the non-modulated projections, for the advantage of precisely controlling the microstructure to ensure that the residual stress that accumulates in the small-area fused modulated regions in the corners can be absorbed by the small-area non-modulated regions, because otherwise a wide-area melt pool would form that would expand beyond the corners, causing fusion in areas outside regions 311, increasing the likelihood of undesired defects that can result on the build surface (Feldmann, paras 0036, 0051, and 0056-0057).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of fig. 5C in view of 7A of Feldmann as set forth above regarding claim 8 teaches the invention of claim 11. Specifically, in fig. 7A Feldmann teaches wherein the laser beam source is configured to preheat the powder material (“a significant fraction of its melting point,” para 0055) at the first portion (projection 703, fig. 7A) and the laser beam source is configured to fuse the powder material (“local melting,” para 0055; the powder is construed as fusing when it melts) at the second portion (projection 704, fig. 7A).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of fig. 5C in view of 7A of Feldmann as set forth above regarding claim 23 teaches the invention of claim 27. Specifically, in fig. 7A, Feldmann teaches wherein the laser beam source is configured to fuse the powder material (“one or more modulated linear shaped projections that cause local melting,” para 0055) at the first portion (modulated projection 704, fig. 7A) and the laser beam source is configured to reduce an energy flux to control cooling of the fused powder material (“heating the build surface to an elevated temperature so as to relieve residual stress or control its microstructure, after the layer is fused yet before application of the next layer of unfused material,” para 0057) at the second portion (non-modulated projection 703, fig. 7A).
Regarding claim 14, Feldmann teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose in the fig. 5C embodiment, wherein at least one geometry of the plurality of beam geometries can be varied based on a temperature profile for an object to be produced.
However, in the embodiment shown in fig. 7A, Feldmann teaches wherein at least one geometry of the plurality of beam geometries can be varied based on a temperature profile for an object to be produced (“a non-modulated line shaped source brings the powder close to its melting temperature, and melting takes place if additional energy is delivered, such as using the modulated line source,” para 0055; the temperature profile is construed as the temperature for projection 703 being less than the melting temperature and the temperature for projection 704 being greater than the melting temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of the fig. 5C embodiment, in view of the teachings of the embodiment shown in fig. 7A, by correlating the modulated line projections 704 in fig. 7A with the left portion of regions 311 in fig. 5C, and by correlating the non-modulated line projections 703 in fig. 7A with the middle portion of regions 311 in fig. 5C, in order modulate the energy spatially in regions 311 with modulated and non-modulated regions, so that the residual stress that accumulates in the small-area fused modulated regions in the corners can be absorbed by the small-area non-modulated regions, because otherwise a wide-area melt pool would form that would expand beyond the corners, causing fusion in areas outside regions 311, increasing the likelihood of undesired defects that can result on the build surface (Feldmann, paras 0036, 0051, and 0057).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Feldmann in view of Diaz as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 29. Specifically, Feldmann teaches wherein the one or more optics (not explicitly disclosed) are configured to shape the laser beam into at least one geometry of a plurality of beam geometries (“the width of the projection … varied,” para 0051; pattern for regions 312, fig. 5C; in these regions, the widths of the line projections are varied and these varying widths are construed as the claimed “plurality of beam geometries”) during a second scanning of the build piece (“second stage,” para 0051), and to adapt a first geometry of the laser beam (left portion of regions 312, fig. 5C; annotated in fig. 5C below) at a first time (the line projections have ”time-varying positions,” para 0051; the line projections are scanned in a time-varying manner; the construed “first adapted laser beam” is construed as happening at a “first time” in the line projections that are on the left in regions 312, fig. 5C) during the second scanning (“second stage,” para 0051) of the build piece and to adapt a second geometry of the laser beam (projections in the middle of the regions 312, fig. 5C; annotated in fig. 5C below) at a second time (the line projections have ”time-varying positions,” para 0051; the line projections are scanned in a time-varying manner; the construed “second adapted laser beam” is construed as happening at a “second time” in the middle of regions 312, which take place at a different time than the “first time” in the line projections that are on the left in regions 312, fig. 5C) during the second scanning of the build piece (“second stage,” para 0051), each of the first and second geometries is based on an energy profile of the build piece to fuse the powder material (the examiner is relying on fig. 5 of the Instant Application to understand what an “energy profile” is; similarly, the “checkerboard pattern” of fig. 5C taught by Feldmann is construed as an energy profile, which show different regions 311 and 312, for different amounts of fusion that take place in the checkerboard pattern). Additionally, Diaz teaches wherein the one or more optics (means 5 and scanner 3, fig. 1; the means 5 is construed as a “varioSCAN focusing unit, obtainable from SCANLAB,” para 0125; “control (such as to vary or maintain) the size of the primary laser spot while it is being displaced along the first scanning pattern,” para 0125) are configured to shape the laser beam (shape of effective laser spot 21, figs. 2; “in FIGS. 12D and 12E, the two-dimensional energy distribution is adapted so that the effective spot progressively grows narrower,” para 0149).
Feldmann, fig. 5C (annotated)
PNG
media_image6.png
793
1199
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, Feldmann teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first scanning of the build piece includes scanning continuously along a scanning direction from the first time to the second time.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser-based additive manufacturing systems, Diaz teaches wherein the first scanning of the build piece (figs. 12D-12E) includes scanning continuously (“the width of the effective spot can be adapted one or more times, such as continuously, during a sweep of the effective spot along said track,” para 0066; the width changes continuously along the scans in 12D and 12E) along a scanning direction (direction of scan from 12D to 12E) from the first time to the second time (the width of the scan in figs. 12D-12E is construed as expanding continuously from a first time to a second time between the time in 12D and the time in 12E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Feldmann, in view of the teachings of Diaz, by varying continuously, as taught by Diaz, the varying width of the line projections, as taught by Feldmann, in order to provide for a continuous progress growth of the object being produced, so that a continuous trail of melted material forms and then cools and solidifies, enabling creation of an additive manufactured objected (Diaz, para 0082).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldmann et al. (US-20180207722-A1, effective filing date of 18 July 2015) in view of Diaz et al. (US-20170239724-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of ScanLab (NPL: Specifications for VarioScan focusing device).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Feldmann in view of Diaz as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 15. Specifically, Diaz teaches wherein the one or more optics (means 5 and scanner 3, fig. 1; the means 5 is construed as a “varioSCAN focusing unit, obtainable from SCANLAB,” para 0125) comprises at least one of each of an optical element (“varioSCAN focusing unit, obtainable from SCANLAB,” para 0125) and a movable optical element (scanner 3, fig. 1; the scanner consists of “galvanic mirrors” that move and cause the reflection as well as the scanning of the beam, paras 0064 and 0119) aligned to encompass the laser beam (the mirrors in the scanner encompass the beam, fig. 1).
Feldmann/Diaz does not explicitly disclose a fixed optical element (Diaz does not explicitly disclose that the varioSCAN is fixed).
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser-based additive manufacturing systems, ScanLab teaches a fixed optical element (“stationary focusing optic,” page 2; being stationary is construed as being “fixed”).
VarioScan, ScanLab
PNG
media_image7.png
724
728
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Feldmann/Diaz, in view of the teachings of ScanLab, such that the varioSCAN focusing unit, as taught by Diaz, was stationary, as taught by ScanLab, for the advantage of using a stationary system that is able to dynamically focus without requiring additional equipment to change the focal length (ScanLab, page 2).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Feldmann in view of Diaz and ScanLab as set forth above regarding claim 15 teaches the invention of claim 16. Specifically, ScanLab teaches wherein at least one of the optical elements comprises a lens (lenses are shown in the VarioScan focusing device on page 1; “focusing optic,” page 2; a focusing optic is construed as being a lens).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 3 December 2025 have been fully considered. The Applicant’s arguments regarding the Feldmann reference are not persuasive. However, the Applicant’s arguments regarding the Mazumder reference are persuasive.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102 and 103
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 that the Feldmann reference (US20180207722A1) failed to disclose individually, or suggest in combination, adapting a beam geometry from a first geometry to a second during the same scanning stage, the applicant is respectfully advised that, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Instead of relying on structural differences, the Applicant relies on functional limitations in order to distinguish their claimed invention over the prior art references for claim 1.
The examiner agrees with the Applicant that Feldmann teaches a two-stage process in fig. 5C. However, the examiner disagrees with the Applicant that Feldmann does not teach adjusting the beam geometry during each of these two stages. Respectfully submit that this aspect of Feldmann was identified in the previous Office action:
“If ‘changing the geometry’ means adjusting the width of a line projection for a laser beam, then Feldmann teaches this method in fig. 5C. Specifically, Feldmann teaches that ‘the time-varying position of the line projection on the build surface, the width of the projection, and the distribution of intensity along the projection are varied to achieve such an exemplary checkerboard pattern to result in fusion of the material on the build surface having a desired final density and/or microstructure’ (paragraph 0051). The varying widths of the patterns are shown in the regions 311 and 312 of the checkerboard pattern shown fig. 5C. Specifically, the width along one of the diagonals is longer than the widths of the projection at each of the two opposite corners” (page 34 of the Office action filed 4 Sep 2025).
These changing widths are evident in fig. 5C of Feldmann:
PNG
media_image8.png
649
1145
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Thus, the examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s statement that “Feldmann does not disclose or suggest adapting a beam geometry from a first geometry to a second during the same scanning stage.” Instead, Feldmann teaches that during each of the scanning stages, the width of the line projections is varied in order to keep the line projections within the rectangular regions 311 and 312, as shown in fig. 5C.
Applicant' s arguments regarding Mazumder with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Feldmann combined with Diaz.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/21/2026